About your Search

20131028
20131105
STATION
CSPAN 8
CSPAN2 4
KQED (PBS) 2
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
CNNW 1
LANGUAGE
English 20
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
, a new book looks at his little known legacy as a ground- breaking foreign-policy president. >> lincoln had to deal with a series of crises over the course of his presidency from france, from britain, from spain, even russian ships showed up off the atlantic coast. >> ifill: those are just some of the stories we're covering on tonight's "pbs newshour." >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: israel has launched new air strikes into syria. u.s. security officials say the attack came after nightfall, in the syrian port city of latakia after nightfall. the target was said to be russian-made, surface-to-ai
as first and foremost as a foreign policy nation security president. that was what he really loved to do. that what really met to him the most. the idea that you would have the president of the united states like barack obama, who has, in my view, actually, pragmatic and reasonable foreign policy, but for whom policy is enough, but not a priority. i think richard nixon would have great difficulty identifying with that. the second thing is, the thing which i think in common if you talk about richard nixon and ronald reagan was, obviously, they were fairly big men in their own way, in a different way, and they never would say my party, my republican party, right or wrong. what i think they would say, and reagan arian takelated well, i will not speak ill of a fellow republican. when you hear this kind inside the republican party, and when you have a crisis like that, few republican senators essentially, like that administration and focusing on tactical errors of the departed, there is something -- something that ronald reagan and richard nixon, in my view, would not be able to identify with
on the public? finally, what are the implications of this on how we implement foreign policy. it serves as an overarching of the things i would like to see us cover. i would like to start with the first question on the rent we face and why we need security. if there are no random -- no benefits, we do not need security. how has the threat of terrorism changed over the past decade and how have our methods adaptive? >> it has changed in relatively significant ways. it is a far more diffuse threat than it was 10 or 15 years ago. it is not necessarily align to buy group, but principally by ideology and other driving fact there's, -- driving factors. secondly, the threat seems to progress at times very rapidly. what may appear to be a localized threat today could be on our doorstep tomorrow. lastly, they do not necessarily appear based on their actions in recent actions are indicators of that. big and complex attacks are their goal or their aim to accomplish their objectives. relatively small in comparison attacks that are relatively simple to put together and execute seem to be a preference
friendship ith other countries. if you follow iraq's foreign policy, you would see that the iraqis think independently and not according to the interest of any others. we have a partnership an agreement with the united states. this is something some other countries do not like. that we like it, this is what matters. be believed to have a strong relation within the united states. if others do not agree, it is their problem. they cannot impose anything on the iraqis. if they want to be our friends our friendship does not impose on us being enemies of others. >> how do you respond to critics -- this is not coming from me, but a question from someone else -- say you are consolidating power and this has adversely affected iraq's democratic process? >> the constitution and ruling in iraq gives prerogative. this is something i state clearly. let me know when i act in an unconstitutional way. if i act in a way that is not acceptable to some of our partners, as long as i am committing to respecting the constitution and as long as i use my prerogative in a constitutional way, there should ot be a
. and finally, turn to what is the -- what do the implications of this an how we implement foreign policy. with that sort of an overarching on the topic i like to see us cover. i'm going it start with the first question on the threat we face and why we need -- feel we need security. if there are no benefits with e wouldn't have be having the discussion. with that, george, i would like to turn to you. how has the threat of terrorism changed over the past decade and how have our security and -- it's changed, henry, i think a few relatively significant ways. first, it is a threat than it was ten to fifteen years ago. it's not necessarily aligned bay group by ideology and other driving factors which may be complaint about how we are conducting ourselves in their view. secondly, the threat seems to progress at time very rapidly. what may appear to be a localized threat today perhaps in some obscure part of the world could in fact be on the doorstep tomorrow. lastly, it has significantly. they don't necessarily appear based on their actions and recent actions are indicators of that. that necess
-- on how to achieve a foreign- policy objective. in on personal cell phone calls, does that go too far? guest: our leaders need to apply a balancing test. they have to weigh the foreign intelligence game from such a sensitive axes, like you are saying, in particular intercept of a foreign leader's phone call. a foreign-policy flap would result if it was disclosed. you have to apply that balancing. i think judging from the newspapers that is what the white house is doing this week. they are reviewing the posture of the intelligence community on these collection priorities. are going to apply this test to see what makes sense for the country. appropriate?back guest: it is safe to say the snow back -- the snowden relation did -- revelation caused blowback. host: he was a game changer in all this, would you agree? caller: i think so because this is one of the greatest leaks and compromises in american intelligence in our history. it is the equivalent of giving the other team our playbook. going to be looking back on the snowden years for years to come, perhaps as a point when some of our c
are the implications of this on how we implement foreign policy. it serves as an overarching of the things i would like to see us cover. i would like to start with the first question on the rent we face and why we need security. if there are no benefits, we do not need security. how has the threat of terrorism changed over the past decade and how have our methods adaptive? >> it has changed in relatively significant ways. it is a far more diffuse threat than it was 10 or 15 years ago. it is not necessarily align to buy group, but principally by ideology and other driving fact there's, -- driving factors. secondly, the threat seems to progress at times very rapidly. what may appear to be a localized threat today could be on our doorstep tomorrow. lastly, they do not necessarily appear based on their actions in recent actions are indicators of that. big and complex attacks are their goal or their aim to accomplish their objectives. relatively small in comparison attacks that are relatively simple to put together and execute seem to be a preference. they have the same tools we all have to communicate in a
point out, nsa situation obviously a huge domestic and foreign policy issue, health care is his signature achievement to this point in his presidency. you would think he would be more in the loop is a way of saying it than he has been. >> how much of this shock that's being expressed by the allies just simply to try to get some leverage with the u.s. because everyone knew this was going on and they do it to us and we do it to them. the world of spying. >> you have to express anger this is going on. if you suspected or knew it was going on. they can use it effectively for leverage. the question now is whether or not united states is going to enter into new nonspying agreements with countries they have long resisted entering these agreements with. so whether it's the french or germans, you know, they now have a good deal of leverage to try to negotiate these pacts if they so choose. it's quite possible one result is there will be more nonspying agreements with european allies than there were before. >> i would bet on germany and not on france, just saying. mark mazzetti and chris
to congressional arm-twisting, the big reform to incremental change and the big foreign policy ambition to cultivating head of state relationships. it means that obama has appeared to be caught unaware as controversies envelop his administration. the west wing that he runs seems more like liabilities than benefits, raising questions about how much information obama wants and how he receives it. this president doesn't seem to be as relentlessly curious about the process of government. from peter baker -- peter baker writes, those cases underscore the difficult choices in what to tell a president. aides determined that it would be inappropriate for the president to have advanced knowledge of the irs investigation. beresident should not involved in such investigations or law-enforcement cases because it could politicize them. john tuck said he was not bothered asnot as other republicans about mr. obama's not knowing about the problems with the health-care system in advance. i would never put the finger on somebody saying they should have known or might have known. what difference does it m
, that intelligence capability is enormously important to the united states, to our conduct of foreign policy, to the fed's matters, to economic matters and i'm a strong supporter of it. >> reporter: the director of national intelligence, james clapper announced overnight he's declassifying a trove of documents about collection under the foreign intelligence surveillance act or fisa. later today, clapper and the head of the nsa, keith alexander will be testifying on the hill. kate, we can expect them to face hard questions as well. we'll try to ask some of our own. >> absolutely. review on multiple fronts but what will come of it? jim sciutto, great to see you. thank you so much. >>> the obama administration is facing ongoing criticism on another front. obama care. the president'sed visors are fighting back on twitter, challenging claims millions of people could lose coverage because of the law. the administration is extending the signup window by six weeks. senior white house correspondent brianna keilar is here with the very latest. >> that signup deadline now march 31st. it had been februa
in asia. asia is the focal point of this administration's foreign policy. the pivot we have discussed frequently. withrip will be in keeping intense focus the president has brought to bear on our relationships in the region and on our presence in the region. this will be a continuation of the work the president has done. that the president looks forward to speaking with the vice president about the trip before he goes and getting a readout on his return. according to a news report, nsa has several [indiscernible] beijing and hong kong. will this be an issue between the vice president and his counterparts in china? comment on specific reported intelligence gathering activities. what i am confident of is when the vice president travels and has meetings with counterparts in foreign countries that every topic is on the table. he said get back to us on the answer to that, is the president rolling out fundraising for any and credit super pac for the coming cycle? >> i have not had a single conversation about 2014. you and get back to you to the extent we have answers on these questions. but
in charge, the foreign policy guy he's the chief executive of the united states government responsible for the irs and all the agencies under him. maybe you consider that conceptual but it's real an every time something gets screwed up out there there's a sense he may not be involved. that's not way it ought to be. we only get one guy in there and that's the chief executive and he ought to be accountable. >> chris matthews thank you so much. we'll see you tonight at 7:00 on "hardball." julie pace thank you as well. i hope you put up with me. chuck and michael steele stay with us if you can. up next superstorm sandy one year later. we revisit one of the hardest hit areas. plus senator chuck schumer on what's still need in the recovery efforts. in the coming addition joe will be taking part in a series of events to mark the upcoming publication of his brand new book "the right path." it's the right time for this book. it scares me, actually. things kick off on monday november 11th at columbia university the miller theater there. he'll sit down with jon meacham. you can get free admissio
of what we are to collect and analyze. >> why would that be important for policy makers to know what the intentions of foreign leaders may or may not be? >> well, for one, to determine if what they are there the intelligence perspective if what they are saying jells with what is going on. it's invaluable to us to know where countries are coming from, what their policies are. how that would impact us across a whole range of issues. so and it isn't just leaders themselves. policies they can convey to governments. >> and -- it's certainly in my time since being in this business as an fbi at, and since 2004 on this committee, always found that the best way to determine a foreign leaders intentions is to somehow either get close to a foreign leader or actually get communications of a foreign leaders would that be accurate? >> yes, it would. >> and is say for how many years you have been in the intelligence business. is in something new and different, that the intelligence can chart. to try to determine what the best policy may be for the united states of america. >> it's one of the first
to target foreign leaders' intentions to try to determine what the best policy might be for the united states of america? thing ithe first learned in intelligence school in 1963. leadership intentions, no matter what led -- level you are talking about. believe the allies have conducted any kind of espionage activity against the united states of america, our intelligence or otherwise? >> absolutely. >> are you familiar with a story from the former french head of the dcri? >> that is the french domestic intelligence organization. >> let me read you a quote. i am amazed by such disconcerting naÏvetÉ. you'd almost inc. our politicians don't bother to read the ports they get from their ourlligence -- think politicians don't bother to read the reports they get from their intelligence department. say, some of this reminds me of the classic movie casablanca. my god, there is gambling going on here. it is the same kind of thing. alexander, in your experience as director of the security agency, have allies in the united states engaged in anything that you call and espionage act toward the unit
foreign leaders' intentions to dry to determine the best policy for the united states of america? >> it's one of the first things i learned in intelligence school in 1983 that this is the fundmental given in the intelligence business is leadership intentions, no matter what level you're talking about. that can be military leaders as well. >> do you believe that the allies have conducted or at any time any type of espionage activity against the united states of america, our intelligence service, our leaders, or otherwise? >> absolutely. >> are you familiar with a story recently from the former french head of the direct -- well, the dcri -- are you familiar with that? >> that's the french domestic intelligence organization. >> let me read you a quote from that gentleman. quote, i'm amazed by such disconcerning naivety, he said in the interview. you'd think the politicians don't read reports they get from the intelligence services. he's talking about french spying on our allies including the united states of america. do you find that consistent with what you know as director of the nationa
't just leaders themselves. it's what goes on around them and the policies that they convey to their governments. >> certainly in my time since being in the business of fbi agent since 2004 in this committee i have always found the best way to determine a foreign leader's intentions is to somehow it either get close to a foreign leader or -- of a foreign leader. would that be accurate? >> yes it would. >> how many years you have been in the intelligence, for many years as the something new that the intelligence committee might try to target -- >> it's one of the first things i learned in intel. it's the fundamental given in the intelligence business. leadership intentionintention s not matter what level you are talking about and that could be military leaders as well. >> you believe that the allies have it at any time any type of espionage activity against the united states of america our intelligence services or leaders or otherwise? >> absolutely. >> are you familiar with the story recently from the former french head of the dcr i? are you familiar with that? >> that's the
afternoon. i am going to start the first afternoon session. the topic is foreign intelligence surveillance. we are pleased to have as theesses, james baker with department of justice, office of intelligence, and policy review. judge james carr, a senior federal judge of the united states district court and formerly a judge from 2002 2008. sillinger, a former doj attorney at the computer crime and electrical property section. these make your remarks and then afterwards we will have five minutes for each of the board members. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank the board for inviting me back. it is an honor to be here and an honor to be able to discuss these kinds of issues in this type of setting. i appreciate the opportunity. i have just a couple of quick comments. is focus of our discussion on 702 of the fisa amendment act patriot act.e while these are very important statutorily authorized and judicial he reviewed surveillance programs involving the collections and communications -- collection of commit occasions and to medications data with many americans, they are only part of
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)